Like an arrow fired from Cupid's bow, hypocrisy has struck Sam Yagan in the rear end.

The co-founder and CEO of OkCupid was outed as an inadvertent opponent of gay rights when the Uncrunched blog reported that Yagan donated $500 in 2004 to a conservative congressman who previously sought to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children.

Normally, I wouldn't care about a minor campaign donation made 10 years ago, but Yagan deserves scrutiny. His online dating service recently urged OkCupid customers to boycott Mozilla because then-CEO Brendan Eich had supported a measure to prevent same-sex marriage in California.

Eich ultimately resigned, due in no small measure to the frenzy stirred by Yagan's self-serving campaign.

"We are pleased that OkCupid's boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships," the company crowed.

Yet Yagan supported Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah - a politician who voted to ban gay adoptions in Washington, D.C., in 1999. He later voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2006, and against a ban on job discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2007.

In a statement to The Chronicle, Yagan said he was not aware of Cannon's positions on gay rights when he made the donation in 2004. He said he backed Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw Internet and intellectual property issues.

"I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today," Yagan wrote. He declined to comment further.

Mixing business and politics has always been tricky. To what extent do the private political activities of a CEO affect his or her ability to lead an organization? It depends on how closely the public identifies the CEO with the company. For instance, if it were Meg Whitman whose past political donations attracted widespread scorn, Hewlett-Packard's board of directors would probably have to replace her.

In this case, neither Eich nor Yagan are household names, making the outrage over Eich's views on same-sex marriage all the more puzzling. After Mozilla named him CEO in March, it's not as if Eich hung an antigay banner outside his office window. People suddenly decided he was unfit to lead Mozilla because of a $1,000 check he wrote six years ago - a donation that first attracted attention in 2012, when Eich served as chief technology officer.

Yagan is a different story. By choosing to insert OkCupid into the controversy, he actively sought attention. And boy, did he succeed.

But after Uncrunched disclosed his donation to Cannon, Yagan insisted that his situation is nothing like Eich's.

"A contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right," he said.

In other words, Eich is a bigot and Yagan is just an accidental bigot.

If gay rights are really as near and dear to Yagan's heart as he claims, one would think he would do a better job researching Cannon's views before cutting a check. As Yagan freely admits, capitalism, not civil rights, drove his decision.

Moreover, Yagan supported Cannon in 2004, a year when same-sex marriage was a pipe dream. Ten years later, Yagan chose to make an example of Eich when the future of same-sex marriage looks bright. How brave.

And by the way, which is worse? A man who wanted to ban same-sex marriage in California? Or supporting a man who wants to do the same for the entire country? And allow companies to discriminate against gay people? And prevent gay couples from adopting children?

I value competence in a CEO above all else. Eich's competency was never in question. The same can't be said for Yagan. In this case, Yagan failed to perform due diligence - the most basic duty of any business leader - on his own money.